This is a slice of my philosophical, lay scientific, musical, religious skepticism, and poetic musings. (All poems are my own.)
The science and philosophy side meet in my study of cognitive philosophy; Dan Dennett was the first serious influence on me, but I've moved beyond him.
The poems are somewhat related, as many are on philosophical or psychological themes. That includes existentialism and questions of selfhood, death, and more. Nature and other poems will also show up here on occasion.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

This overview of theories of ethics by Massimo Pigliucci, followed by this particular one on contractarian versions of ethics, and this specific one on John Rawls' veil of ignorance,
reminded me of a few things, some of which I've specifically
articulated either here or on Massimo's blog, but others that have ben
just wandering in my head.

They are, in no particular order after No. 1 —

1. John Rawls is overrated;2. Rawls is, if not a classical utilitarian, some sort of consequentialist;3. The veil of ignorance is really just a specialized view of the utilitarian "view from nowhere";4.
Though I'm not a system builder, ethics in my philosophical mindset
depends much more on a correspondence theory of truth, contra Massimo,
who allows more room for the coherence theory of truth to guide ethics.
(As I posted on his blog recently, that may be part of what explains his
love for virtue ethics.)I'm going to unpack 1-3 more, with the unpacking of 2 and 3 explicating No. 1, which means I'll unpack them first.

No.
2 comes from Rawls' own famous "justice = fairness" phrase. What is
that if not some sort of consequentialist? Now, he may put that in a
contractarian background, but I believe that if push had ever come to
shove (assuming Rawls accepted either one of the labels as applying to
himself) he would have called himself a consequentialist first.

Now,
some people will criticize me for this, the same who criticize the a
few of my book reviews, but I came to hold that Rawls was overrated by
reading about him more and before actually reading him.

The linchpin? Walter Kaufmann's "Without Guilt and Justice," which simply blows Rawls' "justice = fairness" ideas out of the water.

Kaufmann starts with the obvious, which I will slightly rephrase to fit into terms of the current discussion.

That
is that the "veil of ignorance," or the more general "view from
nowhere," is an idealized abstraction which isn't even close to
achievable in reality.

Oh,
sure, we strive for it, and sometimes obtain it in some special issues
that have at least a degree of ethical freight. An obvious example is
the practice of major symphony orchestras to give tryouts to new players
by having them play from behind a screen. This is designed to screen
out, pun intended in some way, any female bias from the conductor, the
principal chair in the section with the opening, and others involved.
(And, yes, such bias was real, and huge, before the screens were
raised.)

But, that's not
what the likes of Rawls are getting at. He, and followers, act under the
idea that we can take this veiled view out into situations outside the
original setting, including settings where, Kaufmann charges, it's not
only impossible to remain veiled, but where some people will demand we
become unveiled.

Ergo,
it's a thought experiment with little relation to reality. (Short of
some Brave New World future which would entail some overseers
controlling the veils.)

Or, to put it more pithily, there are always oxen being gored — and sometimes, their owners' complaints are rightfully made.

Or, even more to Kaufmann's point, there
are always oxen being gored — and sometimes, some people think with
good reason their owners' complaints are rightfully made, and other
people think with good reason these complaints are out of bounds.

So,
contra Pigliucci, no, Rawls' idea doesn't grow on me. The Platonic cave
and the Theory of Ideas once did grow on me, but I was less than half
the age then that I am now, and still a conservative evangelical
Christian.

To me, Rawls'
thought experiment only grows on people who, in terms of political
philosophy, do not put "skeptical" in front of "liberal" or
"left-liberal." (Unlike yours truly.) Now, to the degree a view from nowhere might seem
to be an unveiled, but theoretically detached, utilitarianism. However,
this is where consequentialism in general fails.Human life, like space-time, has four dimensions.
Humans are, of course, not temporally omniscient. Therefore, we can
never say that our utilitarian judgments are correct. For all we know,
maybe we should have let Hitler kill more people, if one wants to stake
out a deliberately Godwin-like position.Beyond that, utilitarianism fails in other ways.
The hedonic calculus does so even without the view from nowhere falling
short. On matters of taste, and hedonic benefit, it runs smack into the
old Latin maxim: "De gustibus non disputandum." On this account,
shouldn't the National Endowment for the Arts give more money to punk
rock bands and less to symphony orchestras?

And, no, the arts aren't the same as ethics. The above question is in part rhetorical, but not entirely so.

On
ethical issues, we have a certain natural compass from biology. The
arts? Not so much. Let's stay within fine arts. A lot of people don't
call what Picasso does "art," or what Schoenberg does "music." So,
somebody else might say, no, we shouldn't give NEA money to punk rock,
but, we shouldn't give it to a symphony orchestra, either, unless it
pledges itself to not play any post-1900 music. And, not in terms of NEA money, but in terms of
ticket sales, exactly that happens. Blue-haired ladies around the
country refuse to plunk down money for classical concerts that have
serial music on the program. A few of the largest cities in our country
have orchestras that specialize in modern music, but they struggle.

===

As a sidebar note, this is a good example of why I identify myself as a skeptical left-liberal on this blog, and elsewhere. I'd love it if Rawls were right, but I just don't see that.

Monday, February 03, 2014

Even more than the showdown between the Seattle Seahawks and Denver
Broncos, even more than the showdown between Peyton Manning and what a
win would mean for his legacy, there was one other thing that piqued my
attention (even if a late afternoon nap had me miss it and much of the
first half).

That was glorious-voiced, and lovely looking, if I may, Renee Fleming, singing the National Anthem.

"Finally!" I thought. "We'll get it sung right at a major sporting event."

Sadly, not quite so.

Fleming didn't fully butcher "The Star Spangled Banner," unlike
the typical big-time sports event singer, tis true but she did at least one-third
maul it. I had hoped that she would just, you know, sing
it like it's written.

If
you can't clock it in under 2 minutes flat, on
the time, you blew it. If you can't sing it straight up (if you're
sober, since it was originally a drinking song tune) without all sorts
of hitches and adornments, you blew it.Fleming didn't have as much of that as your typical rock, rap, R&B, country, pop, or imitation Slim Whitman star, but she had enough of that to have blown it.When
I heard the first syllables on YouTube, I knew my hopes had been sadly
crushed. And, I didn't care for the "reverb" chorus behind her, either.
That hurt the clock time a bit. She might have completed the 2-minute
drill correctly as far as flat time, if not for that, but it would have
had enough issues otherwise to be a one-fifth mauling.I do salute her for not lip-synching, even if it seems that the cold sapped her lungs, and tone, both a bit.